The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Sunday, June 9, 2013

"Debating" Beheading

by Douglas Murray

How can those who claim that
killing "infidel" warriors -- or British troops abroad or two-year old
Israeli children -- is a good thing hope that people will believe them
when they say killing an "infidel" soldier in London is a bad thing?

Here is the problem when it comes to the aftermath of events such as
beheading of one of our soldiers in Woolwich recently. It is not that
almost every Muslim community spokesperson didn't come out and say that
the beheading was bad. That is what they have done before and will
continue to do after – and quite rightly so. It is of course a pretty
low place to position the bar. Applauding anyone for coming out against
beheading is just a symptom of a malaise: "Hurrah – you're for us
keeping our heads."

But the other part of the horror is that there are too many people –
far too many people – who although they would condemn this attack in
London, might not condemn another such attack were it to have happened
somewhere else .

Some years ago, around the time Western hostages were being beheaded
in Iraq, I ended up doing a number of telephone interviews for a radio
station from somewhere in Africa. It was called "Radio Islam" or the
like. Anyhow – the striking thing was that they were always scrupulously
polite. They even kept trying to give me a doctorate I didn't have –
"so, Doctor Murray," and so on. But my relationship with them ended when
they called one day to ask if I would debate beheading. I think it was
after the American hostage in Iraq, Nick Berg, had just been beheaded in
an al-Qaeda snuff-movie.

I said that although I was happy to come on – as ever – what did they
mean when they said "debate"? They surely didn't mean that they had
someone who was "for" beheading? The fixer responded in the most
meticulously polite tone, "You must understand, Dr. Murray, there are
very many people who are for this policy." There was something about
"policy" that particularly chilled the blood.

It is that same chill that occurs in the aftermath of Woolwich. I
wish the people who condemn the murder of the beheaders in Woolwich were
completely removed from the beheading game. But they are not. Among
those who have come out – which is the majority of course – not nearly
enough are far-away enough from the "pro-beheading policy" for any
discerning person's liking.

One of our British Cabinet ministers, for instance, Baroness Sayeeda
Warsi, spoke at a conference of Islamic student societies in London in
March. At this conference she said not only said that Muslim student
societies in Britain are part of a poor, set-upon minority who not only
have no connection with extremism, but she she actually furthered the
narrative by continuing that they are, in fact, "demonized." A matter of
hours before her speech, the same organization hosted a campus-speaker
who believe at the beheading of people who leave Islam ("apostates") is
morally right as well as "painless."

And what about all those heads of British Muslim organisations that
signed the '"Istanbul declaration" the other year? This document
defended – among other things – the use of violence against the Royal
Navy if it helped to prevent arms being imported into Gaza. It is
comforting that many of the groups to which these signatories belong
have condemned the killing of our soldier in Woolwich. But how do such
"leaders" manage to rationalize – or get away with – condemning an
attack on one of our soldiers while calling for attacks on our sailors?

Elsewhere, those who have been spending the last decade euphemising
their way around the killings of British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan,
or finding excuses for those who do the killing there, are having a
harder time than normal. Or perhaps they cannot believe their luck that
nobody is asking them the difficult questions. Instead of just
congratulating them on being "against beheading," the press and
politicians should ask these "faith-leaders" in which circumstances
British servicemen's lives are in fact forefit. They should ask them
about their own records. And receive assurances not only that a British
serviceman's life in Woolwich is sacred, but that those of all other
soldiers of our country -- and our allies' countries -- are viewed in
the same way. This is, of course, exactly the time for such questions to
be asked in larger quantity and with greater volume.

People who believe in the murder of British troops abroad are trying
to pretend that they can find a way to oppose their murder on British
streets. Those who believe in the murder of two-year old Israeli
children are trying to find a way to explain why the murder of a British
man in his twenties is wrong. How can those who claim that killing
"infidel" warriors in war zones is a good thing hope people will believe
them when they say that killing an "infidel" soldier in London is a bad
thing?

A moment of tragedy like this is a moment to do a little learning.
Whether we come out from it wiser, or more fooled, will reveal much
about the long-term direction in which we are heading.